A QUESTION OF ETHICS The Stanards have owned lakeshore property ...

[bb]

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
  The Stanards have owned lakeshore property since 1963. In 1969, the Urbans purchased lakeshore property adjoining the Stanards' lot and used the property for a summer cabin from 1969 through 1974. In 1975, the Urbans converted the summer cabin into a year-round home and moved there permanently. Since 1969, the Urbans have used a grassy area of landpart of which belonged to the Stanardsup to a wooded area between the two houses. Between 1969 and 1988, the Urbans mowed the grassy area up to the woods line and kept the weeds down, let their children and grandchildren play in the grassy area, and stored their boat dock on the grassy area each winter. In 1981, the Urbans constructed a white tin storage shedmounted on a concrete slabon the grassy area. Most of the shed was located on the Sta-nards' property. In 1988, the Stanards brought a lawsuit against the Urbans for trespass and sought removal of the white shed. The Urbans claimed that they acquired ownership of the property by adverse possession because they had used the property since 1969 (the state's statutory requirement for adverse possession was fifteen years). The Stanards claimed that the measurement of the statutory period should begin in 1981, when the permanent storage shed was constructed. Given these circumstances, consider the following questions.

Question 2

The Drug-Free Workplace Act requires ______ to certify that they will provide a drug-free workplace.
 a. all companies that earn more than 25,000 in a year
  b. all companies with less than 25,000 worth of business with the federal government c. all companies in the United States
  d. all limited liability companies
  e. none of the other choices are correct

[bimper21]

Answer to Question 1

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The trial court held that the Urbans had acquired title to the disputed property by ad-verse possession. On appeal, however, this ruling was reversed. The appellate court agreed with the Stanards that the statutory period began in 1981, when the Urbans erected a perma-nent structure on the property. The court noted that its decision is not meant to state that, as a matter of law, adverse possession cannot start until one puts up a building or other permanent or semi-permanent structure. We only find that on these facts the irregular and minimal use by the Urbans of the land at issue was, with the exception of building the shed, nowhere near the level of hostile possession under a claim of right necessary to trigger the start of the required 15-year unbroken period.
2. If it does not, it should. One of the requirements for adverse possession is the contin-uous possession of the property. Continuity is broken if the adverse possessor acknowledges the owner's title. Even if the shed had not been erected, Urban's offer to purchase the proper-tywhich acknowledged that the Stanards owned the propertysometime between 1980 and 1982 would have broken the fifteen-year period, which began in 1969 and therefore would not end until 1984.
3. Generally, trespasses on another's property must be substantial to establish adverse possession. Furthermore, the trespasser is normally required to show by some act that his or her entry upon the land is hostile and under a claim of right. As the court stated in this case, It is a well-known fact that many thousands of homeowners have no boundary fences and that adjoining owners occasionally trespass on their neighbors' lands in cutting grass, trimming hedges, and the like. . . . If such trespasses should be held to constitute a basis for prescriptive rights, every adjoining landowner . . . would acquire . . . an easement in his neighbors' lands to the extent of such trespasses.
4. A basic public policy reflected in adverse possession statutes is that land should be used and enjoyed. Another policy is that by allowing title to property to be gained through ad-verse possession statutes, questions as to boundary lines between adjoining properties and title to land can be more easily settled.

Answer to Question 2

e

[bb]

Thank you

[bimper21]

No problemo